• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Politiicians, Lies, Meat Packer Threats and Reform

Mike said:
Anticapitalism is best defined, to paraphrase Mencken, by the fear that someone, somewhere, is getting rich.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



getting rich is one thing, robbing from the poor and middle class, by not paying your fare share of taxes by hidding behind the bush tax cut for the rich, well, that's highway robbery $$$


PAGE 3 ;




Michael C. Linn

Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors

Linn Energy

$630,000

$4,312,611

Details



Larry G. Pulliam

Executive Vice President, Foodservice Operations

Sysco Corp.

$532,000

$4,312,423

Details



Winston M. Talbert

Executive Vice President and CFO

Plains Exploration & Production Co.

$675,000

$4,283,384

Details



Doss R. Bourgeois

Executive Vice President—Exploration & Production

Plains Exploration & Production Co.

$675,000

$4,280,314

Details



John F. Wombwell

Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

Plains Exploration & Production Co.

$675,000

$4,275,195

Details



D. E. Roberts Jr.

Executive Vice President, Upstream

Marathon Oil Corp.

$875,000

$4,218,026

Details



Stephen J.J. Letwin

Retired Managing Director (Former Principal Executive Officer)

Enbridge Energy Partners

$537,639

$4,176,000

Details



William H. Schumann III

Executive Vice President and CFO

FMC Technologies

$605,352

$4,156,313

Details



W.C. W. Chiang

SVP, Refining, Marketing, Transportation & Commercial

ConocoPhillips

$643,758

$4,133,987

Details



Martin S. Craighead

President and Chief Operating Officer

Baker Hughes

$711,539

$4,133,386

Details



John D. McMahon

Former SVP, WW Sales & Services

BMC Software

$491,667

$4,106,016

Details



Al Monaco

Director

Enbridge Energy Partners

$473,488

$4,099,867

Details



Mark A. McCollum

Executive Vice President and CFO

Halliburton Co.

$600,000

$4,093,148

Details



Randy L. Limbacher

Chairman, CEO and President (PEO)

Rosetta Resources

$625,000

$4,092,984

Details



Albert O. Cornelison Jr.

Executive Vice President and General Counsel

Halliburton Co.

$565,000

$4,043,538

Details



Owen Kratz

CEO and President

Helix Energy Solutions Group

$700,000

$4,001,116

Details



Rene R. Joyce

Chief Executive Officer

Targa Resources Partners

$410,000

$3,952,160

Details



David D. Petratis

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer

Quanex Building Products

$700,000

$3,894,569

Details



William D. Miller

SVP, President - MSM

BMC Software

$450,000

$3,872,897

Details



William E. Chiles

President & CEO

Bristow Group

$750,000

$3,841,360

Details



Terry E. Swift

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

Swift Energy Co.

$627,270

$3,840,102

Details



Andrew M. Alexander

President and Chief Executive Officer

Weingarten Realty Invstors

$700,000

$3,822,740

Details



John R. Irwin

President and Chief Executive Officer

Atwood Oceanics

$431,800

$3,804,200

Details



Jack A. Fusco

President and Chief Executive Officer

Calpine Corp.

$1,045,846

$3,804,065

Details



James S. Brown

President — Western Hemisphere

Halliburton Co.

$550,000

$3,688,500

Details



Peter A. Ragauss

Principal Financial Officer

Baker Hughes

$689,615

$3,680,419

Details



Terry A. Klebe

Vice Chairman

Cooper Industries

$565,000

$3,671,808

Details



R. L. Waltrip

Chairman of the Board

Service Corporation International

$950,000

$3,661,535

Details



Charles M. Sledge

Sr. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

Cameron International Corp.

$493,827

$3,651,429

Details



William C. Lemmer

Sr. Vice President & General Counsel

Cameron International Corp.

$458,885

$3,611,038

Details



Richard K. Stoneburner

President and Chief Operating Officer

Petrohawk Energy Corp.

$500,000

$3,571,843

Details



A James Teague

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

Enterprise Products Partners

$650,000

$3,556,843

Details



Robert L. Potter

Executive Vice President

FMC Technologies

$488,000

$3,517,692

Details



Michael W. Green

Executive Vice President, Foodservice Operations

Sysco Corp.

$494,000

$3,500,493

Details



Stephen B. Solcher

SVP & CFO

BMC Software

$475,000

$3,401,754

Details



Stephen W. Smith

Former Executive Vice President, South and West U.S. Foodservice Operations

Sysco Corp.

$494,000

$3,391,732

Details



John B. Hill

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

Calpine Corp.

$631,839

$3,376,125

Details



Clark C. Smith

President and Chief Operating Officer

Buckeye Partners

$332,308

$3,373,855

Details



Kenneth M. Fisher

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Noble Energy

$495,192

$3,369,493

Details



Gary D. Packer

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

Newfield Exploration Co.

$442,308

$3,362,933

Details



Greg D. Kerley

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Southwestern Energy Co.

$460,000

$3,353,085

Details



Robert P. Peebler

Chief Executive Officer and Director

ION Geophysical Corp.

$575,000

$3,347,445

Details



Clay C. Williams

Executive Vice President and CFO

National Oilwell Varco

$600,000

$3,344,453

Details



A. Belani

President Reservoir Characterization Group

Schlumberger

$724,879

$3,339,802

Details



Al Swanson

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Plains All American Pipeline

$250,000

$3,339,155

Details



J. W. Sheets

Senior Vice President, Finance, and CFO

ConocoPhillips

$496,840

$3,321,080

Details



Scott C. Schroeder

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.

$362,500

$3,305,854

Details



John E. Vollmer III

Senior Vice President — Corporate Development, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer

Patterson-UTI Energy

$350,000

$3,270,495

Details



Paul J. Sarvadi

CEO and Chairman of the Board

Insperity

$683,800

$3,213,713

Details



J F. Clark

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Marathon Oil Corp.

$672,500

$3,189,599

Details



SEE PAGE AFTER PAGE OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH HERE ;




http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/07/26/want-to-find-out-who-makes-the-most-find-out-here/?appSession=704230619166974&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=3&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Terry_S_Singeltary_Sr/john-boehner-debt-ceiling-plan-republicans_n_908343_99045241.html




tss
 
With exception of cases where illegal activity is PROVEN, what business is it of anyone other than the shareholders of a company, business, or corporation what they pay their employees?

mrj
 
mrj said:
With exception of cases where illegal activity is PROVEN, what business is it of anyone other than the shareholders of a company, business, or corporation what they pay their employees?

mrj
Click to expand...



it's the taxpayer of the lower and middle class, that pay more in taxes, than those that are bringing in the millions and millions, under a bogus bush tax cut for the rich, that's who's business it is. make your millions, screw your shareholders, but pay your fair share of the taxes. pay the same as the low and middle class. ...tss




http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/07/26/want-to-find-out-who-makes-the-most-find-out-here/



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Terry_S_Singeltary_Sr/sarah-palin-tea-party-terrorist_n_917102_100799431.html




tss
 
What about those who pay no income tax? THat is nothing to the federal government, from which they get their support unless they have jobs, and if so, they very likely receive subsidies for food, housing, medical care, and more. They MAY pay some local and state taxes via sales tax, or possibly a tax on a home, if they own one.

For the record, most ag producers pay pretty heavy local and state taxes, and if making even a modest profit most pay income taxes, often at a burdensome level.

mrj
 
Flipper is an idiot but we all know that. :roll:

The Top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the total income taxes paid.

The Top 1% alone pay about 40%.

Who's not paying their fair share?

The bottom wage earners. They pay zero yet get the same benefits. Maybe more.
 
Mike said:
The Top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the total income taxes paid.
Click to expand...



:liar: :disagree:





Who Pays? A Distributi­onal Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States

The study's main finding is that nearly every state and local tax system takes a much greater share of income from middle- and low-income families than from the wealthy.

(you will have to copy and paste this url in your browser now for it to work, and i highly suggest you download WHO PAYS...tss)

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays­3.pdf

and if it still does not work, try this link ;

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.itepnet.org%2Fwhopays3.pdf&ei=itstTsaGBcGGsgLt_YiFCw&usg=AFQjCNGMjgDjebubaNQXjvzxWlPMe95ypA&sig2=JMSvv8Zl8S9zfGWcixcAcw

or just google title ;

Who Pays? A Distributi­onal Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States

O.K. FOLKS, you will have to copy and paste the above urls in your browser, and then i suggest you download it for safe keeping, if it you can still get it...tss

APPEAL THE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH !!!


http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/07/26/want-to-find-out-who-makes-the-most-find-out-here/?appSession=490230455279225&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=
 
Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.

•In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.


•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group's tax share has grown faster than their income share.

•Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.



•The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.


•The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.


•The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
Click to expand...
 
Here's a look at individual tax rates and shares by income in 2007, the most recent data available from the Internal Revenue Service:
•The top 1 percent: Americans who earned an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more accounted for 22.8 percent of all wages. But they paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes, an increase from 39.9 percent in 2006, according to the IRS.


•The top 5 percent: Americans who earned $160,041 or more accounted for 37.4 percent of all wages in 2007. But they paid 60.6 percent of the country's total reported income taxes, up from 60.1 percent a year earlier.


•The top 10 percent: Americans who earned at least $113,018 paid 71.2 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 70.8 percent a year earlier.


•The top 25 percent: Americans who earned at least $66,532 paid 86.6 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 86.3 percent a year earlier.


•The top 50 percent: Americans who earned at least $32,879 paid 97.1 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 97 percent a year earlier.


•The bottom 50 percent: Americans who earned less than $32,879 paid 2.9 percent of the nation's income taxes, down from 3 percent a year earlier.
Click to expand...
 
Flounder, I do believe you need help! just {noticed this was not completed when sent, since I certainly do not believe all you 'share' with us.}mrj

For one thing, Jon Huntsman is a private businessman. Among other businesses he owns is a very exceptional cancer clinic in Utah. I believe it does not matter if the patients have ability to pay or not, they receive exceptionally care. If any family members need to be with the patient, they are treated nicely, too, and all workers are very caring and go beyond the call of duty to help patients and their families.

Most likely, there are many such examples of exceptional generosity of many you list here in your attempts to get more people to envy and even hate those who have more than you think they should of income and assets.
Last time I checked, envy still is sinful.

mrj
 
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy

1616 P Street, NW • Washington, D.C. 20036 • (202) 299-1066

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE ON

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2009 AT 10:00 am

CONTACT: Ed Meyers, 202/299-1066

State & Local Taxes Hit Poor & Middle Class Far Harder than the Wealthy

By an overwhelming margin, most states tax their middle- and low-income families far more heavily than the wealthy, according to a new study by the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. "In the coming months, lawmakers across the nation will be forced to make difficult decisions about budget-balancing tax changes—which makes it vital to understand who is hit hardest by state and local taxes right now," said Matthew Gardner, lead author of the study, Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States. "The harsh reality is that most states require their poor and middleincome taxpayers to pay the most taxes as a share of income."

Nationwide, the study found that middle- and low-income non-elderly families pay much higher shares of their income in state and local taxes than do the very well-off:

# The average state and local tax rate on the best-off one percent of families is 6.4 percent before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, the effective tax rate on the best off one percent is a mere 5.2 percent.

# The average tax rate on families in the middle 20 percent of the income spectrum is 9.7 percent before the federal offset and 9.4 percent after—almost twice the effective rate that the richest people pay.

# The average tax rate on the poorest 20 percent of families is the highest of all. At 10.9 percent, it is more than double the effective rate on the very wealthy.

"Fairness is in the eye of the beholder." noted Gardner. "But virtually anyone would agree that this upside-down approach to state and local taxes is astonishingly inequitable."

The "Terrible Ten" Most Regressive Tax Systems

Ten states—Washington, Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Alabama—are particularly regressive. These "Terrible Ten" states ask poor families—those in the bottom 20% of the income scale—to pay almost six times as much of their earnings in taxes as do the wealthy. Middle-income families in these states pay up to three-and-a-half times as high a share of their income as the wealthiest families. "Virtually every state has a regressive tax system," noted Gardner. "But these ten states stand out for the extraordinary degree to which they have shifted the cost of funding public investments to their very poorest residents."

The report identifies several factors that make these states more regressive than others:

# The most regressive states generally either do not levy an income tax, or levy the tax at a flat rate;

# These states typically have an especially high reliance on regressive sales and excise taxes;

# These states usually do not allow targeted low-income tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax

Credit; these tax credits are especially effective in reducing state tax unfairness.

MORE . . .

Page 2 of 3

Who Pays? examines the tax systems of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, using the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy Microsimulation Tax Model. The ITEP Model is similar in methodology and data sources to the elaborate computer models used by the U.S. Treasury and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, except that the ITEP Model adds state-by-state estimating capabilities.

The findings published in the study detail state and local taxes paid by non-elderly couples and individuals. The study includes all major state and local taxes: personal and corporate income taxes, property taxes, and sales and excise taxes.

"For lawmakers seeking to make their tax systems less unfair, there is an obvious strategy available," noted Gardner. "Shifting state and local revenues away from sales and excise taxes, and towards the progressive personal income tax, will make tax systems fairer for low- and middle-income families. Conversely, states that choose to balance their budgets by further increasing the general sales tax or cigarette taxes will make their tax systems even more unbalanced and unfair."

Implications for State Budget Battles in 2010

"In the coming months, many states' lawmakers will convene to deal with fiscal shortfalls even worse than those they faced last year," Gardner said. "Lawmakers may choose to close these budget gaps in the same way that they have done all too often in the past—through regressive tax hikes. Or they may decide instead to ask wealthier families to pay tax rates more commensurate with their incomes. In either case, the path that states choose in the upcoming year will have a major impact on the wellbeing of their citizens—and on the fairness of state and local taxes."

A one-page chart summarizing U.S. average state & local taxes by income group follows

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3release.pdf


Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States Institute

3rd Edition Carl Davis Kelly Davis Matthew Gardner Robert S. McIntyre Jeff McLynch Alla Sapozhnikova November 2009 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy 1616 P Street, NW • Washington, D.C. 20036 • (202) 299-1066 www.itepnet.org

Conclusion

The main finding of this report — that virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair — comes with a silver lining. In a growing number of states, awareness of this problem is building among lawmakers, the media, and the public. And many states are now considering progressive tax reforms, including a low-income tax credits and high-end income tax increases, that would make state and local taxes at least somewhat less unfair.

Yet the same lawmakers have continued to use regressive sales and excise tax hikes to fund essential services, swamping the progressive impact of such low-income credits. The bleak reality is that of the twenty three states and the District of Columbia that have taken steps to reduce the tax burden on the working poor by enacting state earned-income tax credits, nine still require their poorest taxpayers to pay a higher effective tax rate than any other income group. And many of the states that have been more generous in enacting low-income tax credits have provided even greater benefits to the wealthiest taxpayers in the form of income tax rate reductions.

The current economic slowdown will likely force many states to undertake a thorny debate over revenue-raising tax reforms over the next year. The results of this study should provide an important blueprint for lawmakers seeking to understand the inequitable tax structures enacted by their predecessors. States may ignore these lessons and continue to balance state budgets on the backs of their poorest citizens. Or they may decide instead to ask wealthier families to pay tax rates more commensurate with their incomes. In either case, the path that states choose in the near future will have a major impact on the well-being of their citizens — and on the fairness of state and local taxes.

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf


see also ;

http://www.itepnet.org/state_reports/whopaysfactsheets.php


TEXAS

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/tx_whopays_factsheet.pdf


Sen. Bernie Sanders Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont

Why I Voted No on the Deficit Deal

Posted: 8/5/11 01:13 PM ET

A $2.5 trillion deficit-reduction deal brokered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, and President Barack Obama is grotesquely unfair. It also is bad economic policy. In the midst of a terrible recession, it will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

At a time when the wealthiest people in this country are doing extremely well, and when their effective tax rate is the lowest in decades, the rich won't contribute one penny more for deficit reduction. When corporate profits are soaring and many giant corporations avoid federal income taxes because of obscene loopholes in the tax code, corporate America will not be asked to contribute one penny more for deficit reduction. On the other hand, working families, children, the sick and the elderly -- many of whom are already suffering because of the recession -- will shoulder the entire burden.

The corporate media -- which, by and large, covered this debate as if it were a baseball game with political "winners and losers" -- mostly glossed over the real-life implications of $917 billion in cuts over the next 10 years. Nobody can predict exactly what programs will fall under the knife or say how much they will be cut. Those decisions will be made over the coming months and years by the appropriations committees. But here's what's at stake:

At a time when there are long waiting lists for affordable childcare and Head Start, it is likely that these programs will be cut significantly. At a time when the United States is falling further and further behind other countries in the quality of our education, it is likely that tens of thousands of teachers and school personnel will be laid off. At a time when working families are finding it harder to send their kids to college, it is likely that there will be cuts in federal student aid programs. At a time when hunger among seniors and children is rising, it is likely that there will be cuts in various nutrition programs. At a time when 50 million Americans have no health insurance and many of them are utilizing community health centers for their medical needs, it is likely that there will be cuts in primary healthcare. At a time when states, cities and towns already laid off over 500,000 public service employees, it is likely that there will be even more police and firefighter layoffs and large reductions in federal support for roads, bridges, water quality, sewage and public transportation.

That's just for starters. There likely will be cuts in home heating assistance, affordable housing, support for family-based agriculture, and research in finding cures for cancer and other diseases. There likely will be major staffing reductions in agencies charged with protecting the physical health and economic well-being of our people. It is quite likely that the EPA, which enforces clean water and clean air rules, will be cut. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates Wall Street, will be undermined. It is also very possible that the Social Security Administration, which assures that seniors and the disabled receive the benefits to which they are entitled in a timely manner, will also be cut.

That is just the first round of $900 billion in cuts.

In the second phase of the $2.5 trillion package, sweeping new powers are given to a 12-member, evenly-divided House and Senate super committee. The panel's mandate is to look at every federal government program and come up with $1.5 trillion more in savings. With Republicans and an increasing number of Democrats calling for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of those programs will be in jeopardy.

If the committee is unable to agree, cuts will happen anyway. A sequestration process would require $500 billion in cuts to defense spending and $500 billion more in across-the-board cuts to domestic discretionary spending. In that scenario, Social Security, Medicare benefits and Medicaid would be spared, but even more draconian cuts would occur in programs that sustain working families.

There is a great irony in all this. The deficit deal does exactly the opposite of what the American people wanted. In poll after poll, the American people said they believe in shared sacrifice. Instead of putting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and environmental protection on the chopping block, overwhelming majorities say the best way to reduce the deficit is to end tax breaks for the wealthy, big oil, and Wall Street and take a hard look at military spending. What President Obama and Congress did, however was to let the wealthy and large corporations contribute nothing while making major reductions in services for working families and the most vulnerable people in our country.

Enough is enough! The American people must fight back. We need a government which represents all the people, not just the wealthy, campaign contributors and lobbyists. In these tough and discouraging times, despair is not an option. This fight is not just for us, it is for our children and grandchildren and for the environmental survival of the planet.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/why-i-voted-no-on-the-def_b_919461.html



http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/07/26/want-to-find-out-who-makes-the-most-find-out-here/?appSession=490230455279225&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Terry_S_Singeltary_Sr/john-boehner-debt-ceiling-plan-republicans_n_908343_99045241.html



TSS
 
Does anyone other than TS believe the Huffington Post is a credible source of FACTUAL information? Some things may be, but too many may not be, IMO.

mrj
 
mrj said:
Does anyone other than TS believe the Huffington Post is a credible source of FACTUAL information? Some things may be, but too many may not be, IMO.

mrj
Click to expand...

For that matter, how about Faux News?

MRJ, if you do have a disagreement with an opinion or an article, make your case and substantiate it. That is what this site is all about.

Can you tell us what in particular you are talking about in this post?

Huffington Post has A LOT of different authors from various sources and backgrounds. They are not as controlled as Fox News as far as authors and one must be careful to put them all in one boat.

ALL "NEWS" sources, especially the less journalistic ones, must be read critically otherwise you become a puppet to the propaganda they put out.




Tex
 

Latest posts

Back
Top